What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Michigan OT Goal

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

Greyeagle said:
And I doubt the officials had the benefit of ESPN's enhancements.
Click to expand...

They do. They have a dvr capable of replaying every angle from the broadcast. You can see on the broadcast the officials were looking at a number of angles not just the overhead camera.
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

Driftryder said:
While it very well may be fully over the line that shot is hardly conclusive.
Click to expand...

wait what? isn't that the definition of a goal? This is not like playing a 3 hour game of monopoly with your kids where you start making up rules on the fly to end the game before a fist fight breaks out because someone stole a grand from the bank.
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

wolverine318 said:
They do. They have a dvr capable of replaying every angle from the broadcast. You can see on the broadcast the officials were looking at a number of angles not just the overhead camera.
Click to expand...

By enhancements I meant the ability to zoom in on just the puck, like the picture you posted. From the original picture it's hard to determine if the puck is over the line but from the zoom look it looks like it's in.
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

How about another hater thread?

You're arguing micro-technicalities here. Follow the puck off of Hudson's skate, under Faulkner's right pad, behind him (in the net) back out from under his left pad and then wisked down the ice. Euclid geometry. Can you see it? No. Was it in the net? Yes. No hanging chad here.

Karma is a funny thing. Lynch got robbed against Miami last season. We'll take it.

Tough way for UNO to go out? Sure. Don't blow two goal leads, I guess.
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

Greyeagle said:
By enhancements I meant the ability to zoom in on just the puck, like the picture you posted. From the original picture it's hard to determine if the puck is over the line but from the zoom look it looks like it's in.
Click to expand...

Ok, I completely agree with this. Perhaps the NCAA should invest in those HP touch monitors that allows for pinch and zoom capabilities.
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

On a side note, how about that save by Michigan defenseman Jon Merrill (I think it was him) on that UNO powerplay at the beginning of OT. UNO had an empty net to shoot on, and Merrill was in the right place at the right time and made the stick save.

If that puck goes in.... this is all moot :D
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

Malts18 said:
That is what you are using as "conclusive evidence"???? Whoah. No wonder it took 10 minutes and three guys to make that call. Granted, it might well be over the line, but how do you know that for 100% certainty if you cannot see the puck (likely under his pad)?
Click to expand...

I don't have a dog in this fight and can understand why UNO fans are upset. I'd be, too. On the other hand, people are sent to the electric chair when the evidence is "beyond a reasonable doubt," (which is less than 100% certaint). Fortunately, we usually know for sure whether the puck is in or out. But sometimes it's in the gray area. Calling a goal that wasn't actually made is an injustice to the losing team. But disallowing something that very likely was in, jobs the team that scored it, especially if the odds are strong it was good. As others have noted here, the real problem may have been the on-ice call in the first place.
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

What is always funny in situations like this- the haters of the team find more to "hate" when the officials made the call.

I'm sorry for the team that the refs ended the season like that. But to those of you who WANT to find fault in Michigan, then I'm fine with this stewing in your gut.

Last year, some of us had to remind our fanatics that there is nothing you can do..... Big bummer.
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

someone needs to photoshop a puck into that "photo evidence". not seeing it.
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

I'm just wondering if CC can bring that kind of effort two nights in a row.
That is the game I am looking forward to tonight.
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

Streaker I don't think people are hating on Michigan here. The rule is the rule for a reason, and the officials lose integrity for the game when they chose to ignore the rules. Was this a goal? Probably. Could the officials see it cross the line? Absolutely not. The monitors the officials use on replay are 16 inches at most. You can blow that far ice camera shot up 100x and still not be certain its in the net, which is a benifit the officials do not have in their replay. Its physically impossible to tell if there is space between the puck and the line with the technology the officials are provided with. By the letter of the law this is not a goal. It is very disappointing to see officials completely disregard the rules set in place for what "probably most likely happened."
 
DtownDogs said:
Streaker I don't think people are hating on Michigan here. The rule is the rule for a reason, and the officials lose integrity for the game when they chose to ignore the rules. Was this a goal? Probably. Could the officials see it cross the line? Absolutely not. The monitors the officials use on replay are 16 inches at most. You can blow that far ice camera shot up 100x and still not be certain its in the net, which is a benifit the officials do not have in their replay. Its physically impossible to tell if there is space between the puck and the line with the technology the officials are provided with. By the letter of the law this is not a goal. It is very disappointing to see officials completely disregard the rules set in place for what "probably most likely happened."
Click to expand...

In retrospect, I guess this was a goal although, at the time, I just thought the fatass refs were tired of skating.
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

Alfablue - what? The argument has nothing to do with Michigan. What are you reading? I could give a crap less who was on the other side of the call. The point is, the Michigan fans agree that it should have been overturned, the UNO fans agree that it's inconclusive.
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

And the other funny thing is, it appears as though folks that are neither Wolverine or Maverick fans tend to side with the "inconclusive" argument. Hmm.....
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

gomavs#1 said:
And the other funny thing is, it appears as though folks that are neither Wolverine or Maverick fans tend to side with the "inconclusive" argument. Hmm.....
Click to expand...

and they have no bias, no, absolutely not.

This isn't a court room, it's a hockey game. The puck went in. The spirit of the rule is to get that right, not find some technicality to over rule it.
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

The argument about the call of no-goal on the ice really can't be used as an argument except to establish that the referees needed to see something to overturn the call. It is not proof that it didn't go in. The official was not even close to being in position to see the puck over the line. If you watched the game as it happened on TV, after seeing all of the replays, without the benefit of screen zooms, the TV announcers both agreed the puck was over the line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top